IMPUESTO SOBRE EL DEPÓSITO DE RESIDUOS EN VERTEDERO

The EU experience of gradually and selectively removing migration barriers’ and Russia’s effort to increase controls over people’s mobility proves that restrictive migration policies focused on strict registration systems and quotas are not very effective in preventing immigration. So called “push” and “pull” factors determining the decision to migrate can be very strong and undermine the detrimental effect of migration restrictions.

The dynamics of labour mobility in Eastern Europe and Central Asia 17 According to the migration theory33 migration is influenced at macro, micro and meso level by a number of factors, which are either “pulling” migrants toward a specific destination or “pushing” them to leave their country of origin. The “pull” factors are what drives migrants toward a specific countries and the main ones are the changing demographics (aging population) and the labour market needs in that specific country. The “push” factors are what encourage migrants to leave. They are population pressure, unemployment condition and crisis events (including conflicts and natural disasters) in the country of origin together with disparity in lifestyles and income between country of origin and destination. The decision to migrate is influenced most of the times by a combination of pull and push factors. Increased linkages because of globalization and access to cheap transportation have also facilitated labour mobility. In the case of EU enlargement, migration flows trends from A8 countries and preliminary data for flows from Bulgaria and Romania suggest that labour market conditions and pressures from the country of origin “overruled” the impact of formal restrictions. In particular in the cases of Bulgaria and Romania, income disparities and population and unemployment pressures play also an important “pushing” role.

In Europe, transitional restrictions have definitely not reduced the size of the irregular migrant workforce. During the first two years since the first enlargement (2004-2006) the flow of labour from EU8 to EU15 seems to have been more demand-driven than regulated by the transitional regimes. The United Kingdom and Ireland have experienced robust economic growth and therefore attracted a significant number of migrants. The largest inflow occurred to the United Kingdom (until the end of 2006 a specially devised registered Workers Registration Scheme recorded 579,000 workers from EU8 countries). The inflow to Ireland was also quite strong: official migration figures indicate inflows of about 64,200 people between 2004 and 2006 form A8. On the contrary Sweden the country with the most liberal attitude towards migrants from A8 countries experienced a rather moderate inflow (25,000 between 2004 and 2006). The Swedish case indicates that legal access of A8 citizens to a West European labour market does not automatically lead to considerable immigration. An empirical study based on migration flows from Central and Eastern Europe into the Nordic countries34 (Pedersen and Pytlikova, 2008) shows that the estimated effect of the opening of Swedish labour market in 2004 on migration was almost zero. The authors suggested as a possible explanation the fact that “demand pressure in the Danish and Norwegian labour markets has been so strong that market forces have “overruled” the impact from the formal restrictions”. Denmark and Norway (not EU member) contrary to Sweden did not open their labour markets in 2004.

Other EU15 countries that had opted for transitional restrictions during the period 2004-06 have also experienced economic migration from EU8. Countries like Austria,

33 _{Ernest Ravenstein introduced the concept of pull and push factors for the first time in his "Laws of}

Migration" (1889). After him many other migration theorists have used pull and push factors to explain migration movements. 

34 _{Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Island.}

18 Alessandra Bravi, Alisher Juraev, Aleksandra Janjic

Germany, Italy and the Netherlands continued to issue short-term permits to A8 citizens (as this had already been the case prior to EU enlargement). In Austria the number of A8 workers – in particular from neighbouring Hungary and Slovakia – increased after 2004. In Germany the inflow from A8 – in particular from Poland – initially increased in 2004 despite an overall decline of migration flows to Germany. Demand for labour – one of the key pull factors for migration- in those countries was stronger than migration restrictions and when could not be met by regular supply still attracted irregular workers. Economic slowdown and its effect on labour market also proved to have a stronger influence on migration flows than restrictive measures. In Germany in 2005 unfavorable labour market conditions (not restrictions) seemed to have reduced the inflow of additional labour migrants from A8. Similarly when the UK entered recession in 2009, migration flows to the country dropped significantly. Finally, also pushing factors have a stronger effect on migration than barriers. In the same study Pedersen and Pytlikova, proved that the effect of Swedish and Finish labour markets opening towards the new EU members, Bulgaria and Romania, from the first day of the 2007 EU enlargement, was positive. Bulgaria and Romania pushing factors (including low GDP per capita, high unemployment, and population characteristics) were stronger than in the A8 countries. The results of a regression calculating the correlation between the propensity to migrate35 _{to the UK and the GDP}

per capita in the A8 countries show that the economic prosperity in the source country has a strong influence on migration flows. Citizens of Lithuania and Latvia- the poorest of the A8 countries – showed the highest propensity to move, whereas those form the Czech Republic and Slovenia- the wealthiest A8 countries- have markedly lower rates of migration to the UK36.

The Russia example also confirms the prevailing effect of pulling and pushing factors versus restrictions. Despite the introduction of a very strict registration system the number of migrant workers arriving to Russia in search of job continued to grow. The push factors in countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan – the poorest in the region – and the demand for cheap unskilled labour in Russia (pull) continue attract thousands of people from these countries.

Migration barriers both in the EU and in Russia ended up having the opposite effect of the one desired by the people and policy makers supporting their use. People found different ways for circumventing restrictions: for example entering the country as tourist, applying for asylum system, registering as self-employed service providers etc. Evidence shows that barriers to migration combined with the growth in demand of irregular workers in many sectors (including construction, textiles and sewing, catering, and domestic work) increased the incentives to irregular migration, employment in the informal sector or irregular employment in the formal sector.

35 _{Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan, exceptional People, Princeton Univeristy Press 2011 (Chapter 5}

page 137). 

36_{Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan, exceptional People, Princeton Univeristy Press 2011 (Chapter 5}

The dynamics of labour mobility in Eastern Europe and Central Asia 19 On the other side lowering migration barriers proved not only to be beneficial in terms of increasing the numbers of regular migrants, but also has not been accompanied by “migrant invasions”. Paradoxically raising restrictions enhance incentives for migrant workers to remain longer in the country and even settle. A famous case is the settlement of foreign migrants in Europe in the early 70s when the effective halt to labour migration encouraged many people to try to enter Europe through asylum systems or family reunion. After Germany closed the Gastarbeiter Programme with Turkey, for example, most of the migrants arrived in Germany through this Programme decided to remain in Germany instead of returning to Turkey and their wives and families joined them in Germany. The fear that no other migration possibilities would be available once they returned back to Turkey played a key role in convincing people to settle in Germany. Germany’s national population statistics show that in 2010 there were about 4 million people from Turkish descendent living in Germany.

6 Conclusion

The biaxial trend in migration and remittances for Eastern European and Central Asian economies showed that enhancing people’s opportunities to move within an economic union or a commonwealth union guides migration flows toward the most attractive labour markets in the region such as Russia, Germany and the UK. This can be extremely beneficial for the receiving countries as workers by filling the gaps of national labour supply can support economic growth in the countries of destination. The migration paths in the European Union and in Russia over the past ten years show that restrictions and barriers to migration have failed in their purpose to control migration flows. Increasing migration barriers in a world where people are highly mobile does not stop migration; evidence from Russia and the EU show that trying to restrict legal migration flows had the opposite effect of enhancing illegal migration. On the contrary, lowering barriers to migration can be extremely beneficial for both sending and receiving countries. The gains from eliminating migration barriers dwarf the gains from eliminating other types of barriers (trade and capital)37 by a magnitude of two. Some economists38 predict that completely opening borders would produce gains as high as US$39 trillion for the world economy in 25 years. The estimated gains from fully liberalizing international trade are about US $104 billion.

The paper’s main conclusion is that migration flows will continue no matter how restrictive the policy in place because borders are not impenetrable. Within a union the risks of restrictive migration policies seems to be more dangerous than opening the labour market to migrant workers, especially in countries where there is a strong demand for labour not fully met by national labour supply.  

37 _{Clemens, 2011.} 

38 _{Kym Anderson and Bjorn Lomborg.2008.” Free Trade, Free Labour, Free Growth”. Project}

20 Alessandra Bravi, Alisher Juraev, Aleksandra Janjic 7 References

Babicka, K., 2011. “Cecilia Malmström: The is a Need for Legal Migration to the EU”,

Migrationonline.cz, July 2011. Available at http://www.migrationonline.cz/e-library/?x=2291323.

Black, R., Engbersen, G., Okólski, M. and Pantîru, C., 2010. A Continent Moving West? EU

Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Amsterdam University

Press-IMISCOE Research, Amsterdam.

Clemens, M., 2011. “Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?”, Center for

Global Development Working Paper 264, August 2011. Available at

http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1425376.

Comini, D. and Faes-Cannito F., 2010. “Remittances from the EU down for the First Time in 2009, Flows to non-EU Countries More Resilient”, Statistics in Focus, No. 40/2010. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-10-040/EN/KS-SF-10-040-EN.PDF. Oblak-Flander, A., 2011. “Immigration to EU Member States down by 6 percent and emigration up by

13 percent in 2008”, Statistics in Focus, No. 1/2011. Available at

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-001/EN/KS-SF-11-001-EN.PDF. Goldin, I., Cameron, G. and Balarajan M., 2011. Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our

World and Will Define Our Future, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Herm, A., 2008. “Recent Migration Trends: Citizens of Eu-27 Member States Become Ever More Mobile while EU Remains Attractive to non-EU Citizens”, Statistics in Focus, No. 98/2008. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-098/EN/KS-SF-08- 098-EN.PDF.

International Organization for Migration., 2010. “World Migration Report 2010. The Future of Migration: Building Capacities for Change”, International Organization for Migration, Available at http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf.

Mansoor, A. and Quillin, B., (eds.), 2007. “Migration and Remittances. Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union”, The World Bank, 2007. Available at

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/257896- 1167856389505/Migration_FullReport.pdf.

Marat, E., 2009. “Labour Migration in Central Asia: Implications of the Global Economic Crisis”,

Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Study Program, May 2009. Available at

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/silkroadpapers/0905migration.pdf.

Mensbrugghe van der, D., Roland-Holst. D., 2009. “Global Economic Prospects for Increasing Developing Country Migration into Developed Countries”,United Nations Development

Programme Human Development Research Paper 2009/50, October 2009. Available at

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/papers/HDRP_2009_50.pdf.

Okólski, M., 2007. “Europe in Movement: Migration from/to Central and Eastern Europe”, Centre of

Migration Research Working paper 22/80, August 2007. Available at

http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003130/01/022_80.pdf.

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human rights, 1998. “The CIS Migration Conference: Implementation of the Program of Action of the Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons, Other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Issue of the Internal Registration (Propiska)”, Background Paper 2 for OSCE Human Dimension Meeting. Available at

http://www.osce.org/odihr/16646.

Pedersen, P. and Pytlikova, M.,2008. “EU Enlargement: Migration flows from Central and Eastern Europe into the Nordic countries - exploiting a natural experiment”, Dept. of Economics, Aarhus

School of Business, Aarhus University, Prismet Working paper 8-29. Available at

http://www.hha.dk/nat/wper/08-29_marp.pdf.

Münz, R. and Tamaz, C. 2005. Labour Migrants Unbound? EU Enlargement, Transitional Measures and Labour Market Effects. Institute for future studies, Stockholm, Sweden.

The dynamics of labour mobility in Eastern Europe and Central Asia 21

Saari, S., 2006. “Balancing between Inclusion and Exclusion: The EU’s Fight against Irregular Migration and Human Trafficking from Ukraine, Moldova and Russia”, London School of

Economics-Challenge Working Paper, January 2006. Available at

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalRelations/centresandunits/EFPU/EFPUchallengepapers.aspx. Traser, J., 2008. “Who’s Afraid of the EU’s Latest Enlargement? Report om the Impact of Bulgaria

and Romania Joining the Union on Free Movement of People”, European Citizen Action Service. Available at http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/238/272/.

United Nations Development Programme, 2009. “Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development”, United Nations Development Programme, New York.